The Effects of School
Climate on School Disorder
By WAYNE N. WELSH
ABSTRACT: Explanations of school disorder have suffered from at
least two deficits: (1) institutional explanations of disorder (that is,
school climate) have been largely ignored, and (2) insufficient attention to appropriate measures of disorder has guided research and policy. Like people, schools have their own characteristic personalities,
or climates. Using survey responses from students in middle schools
in Philadelphia, the author discusses the effects of school climate
(such as clarity and fairness of rules) and individual student characteristics (such as age, sex, race, and dimensions of bonding) on different measures of school disorder, including victimization, avoidance,
perceptions of safety, misconduct, and offending. The schools varied
significantly on all measures of disorder, and school climate provided
significant explanatory power for each. Results varied for different
measures, though. For example, school climate predicted less serious
misconduct more strongly than it predicted serious offending. School
climate offers significant potential for enhancing both the understanding and the prevention of school violence.
Wayne N. Welsh is an associate professor of criminal justice at Temple University.
His research has focused on social policy litigation, organizational change, theories of
violence, and violence prevention. He is the author of Counties
in Court: Jail Over-
crowding and Court-Ordered Reform (1995) and, with Philip Harris, Criminal Justice
Policy and Planning (1999). Another book is in progress: Criminal Violence: Patterns,
Causes, and Prevention, with Marc Riedel.
NOTE: Some of the research reported in this article was supported by grant no. 93-IJ-CX0038 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and not necessarily of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
88
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
89
attention has
to
been
school disorder is influenced by
school climate relative to individualor community-level factors. The climate of a school includes the unwritten beliefs, values, and attitudes that
become the style of interaction between students, teachers, and administrators. School climate sets the
parameters of acceptable behavior
among all school actors, and it
assigns individual and institutional
responsibility for school safety. This
article examines the relative contribution of individual and institutional
factors to five different measures of
disorder in Philadelphia public
schools. My purpose is twofold: (1) to
advance the measurement of
school disorder and (2) to identify
relevant causes of school disorder
to guide development of appropriate
interventions.
systematic
L ITTLEdevoted
examining how
THE PROBLEM OF
SCHOOL DISORDER
the United States,
shootings in and around
schools have fueled a national debate
about school disorder. Students,
teachers, parents, and concerned
citizens are shocked by events such
as the Littleton, Colorado, high
school massacre on 20 April 1999 and
the Jonesboro, Arkansas, schoolyard
shootings on 24 March 1998. While
public perceptions of any social problem are often driven by a few dramatic, rare incidents (Welsh and
Harris 1999), there is certainly cause
for concern.
Throughout
recent
In a 1995 survey of students from
10 inner-city high schools, almost
half of the male students said they
could borrow a gun from friends or
family if they wanted to, and 40 percent of the male students said they
had a male relative who carried a gun
(Sheley and Wright 1993). Approximately 56 percent of all juvenile victimizations (property and violent
crimes) in 1991 occurred in school or
on school property (Snyder and Sickmund
1995), leading researchers to
emphasize, &dquo;There is no comparable
place where crimes against adults
were so concentrated&dquo; (Snyder and
Sickmund 1995, 16). Thirty-seven
percent of all violent crimes experienced by youths aged 12-15 occurred
on school grounds (Whitaker and
Bastian 1993).
Unfortunately, the term &dquo;school
disorder&dquo; has been used to refer to
quite diverse phenomena, including
student, teacher, and administrator
perceptions of disorder; school security responses to disorder; school disciplinary data such as the number of
suspensions; student and teacher
self-reported victimization;
and
misoffending
conduct by students.1 Violent deaths
occurring on school property are
extremely rare compared to these
other indices of disorder.
Perceptions and fear of school disorder are important to the degree
that they influence student behavior.
As student fear increases, confidence
in school administrators or other
adults diminishes, and informal
social controls against violence
weaken. Resultant behaviors may
include carrying weapons to school,
measures
of serious
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
or
90
managing impressions by fighting or district administrators reported that
putting on a tough front, or retaliat- the problem of school violence had
ing against perceived transgressors worsened in the previous five years,
(Lockwood 1997). According to 1989 and 35 percent believed that incidata from the School Crime Supple- dents were more serious.
School disciplinary data, includment (SCS),2 only 5.3 percent of students overall feared being attacked ing school records of incidents, susat school at least &dquo;sometimes&dquo; (Pear- pensions, and other disciplinary
son and Toby 1991). However, in
actions, are limited by several
central-city schools where the pres- sources of unreliability (Lawrence
ence of street gangs was reported,
1998). Because record keeping is
37.4 percent of the students feared typically low on the list of school disattack. Fear was also related to age trict priorities, school disciplinary
(younger students feared attack records often contain significant
errors in teacher reporting or adminmore and were more likely to avoid
certain places at school out of fear) istrative recording. Disincentives to
and mode of transportation (those report violent incidents include the
traveling more frequently by public fear of appearing incapable or incomtransportation reported higher lev- petent and potential loss of local and
els of fear) (Bastian and Taylor state political support. Disciplinary
1991). Part of this fear is related to records partially reflect individual
residing in communities with high teacher, school, or district policies in
rates of crime. However, fear may addition to actual rates of incidents.
Data on victimization occurring
stem from various sources, including
emotions
related
inside
a school building or on school
of
risk,
perceptions
to fear, and indirect victimization property is provided by the SCS (Basexperiences (for example, witnessed tian and Taylor 1991; Chandler et al.
occurrences or secondhand reports)
1998). In the 1989 SCS, 16 percent of
the students reported that another
(Ferraro 1994).
School security responses reflect
reactions to perceived disorder.
Metal detectors, paid security personnel, and student locker sweeps
are now commonplace in public
schools. In a National School Board
Association survey of 720 school districts throughout the United States,
researchers found that 39 percent of
urban school districts used metal
detectors, 64 percent used locker
searchers, and 65 percent had security personnel in their schools
(National School Board Association
1993). Eighty-two percent of school
student had attacked or threatened a
teacher at school (Bastian and Taylor
1991). Results comparing the 1989
and 1995 SCS surveys showed that
the percentage of students reporting
one or more violent crimes at school
over a
six-month
low, although
period was quite
figure increased
that
time (3.4 percent versus 4.2 percent). While victimization measures
over
useful as estimates of crime incidence and change, such measures
involve known limitations, including
potential respondent misunderstanding of questions and crime
are
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
91
definitions, faulty recall of incidents
and time periods, and underreporting due to fear, embarrassment, or
one’s own participation in
activities (Biderman and
illegal
Lynch
comparisons
disorder
are
of various measures of
also sorely needed.
INDIVIDUAL EXPLANATIONS
OF SCHOOL DISORDER
1991).
Control theorists contend that
Self-report measures have been
to
used
assess
delinquency. delinquency is the result of a weakwidely
While greater attention to validity ening of effective social and cultural
issues is needed, self-reported delin- constraints, especially via weakened
quency measures have often demon- transmission of values through instistrated good concurrent and predic- tutions such as the family and the
tive validity in relation to criteria school. Social bonding is the mechasuch as juvenile court petitions (Far- nism by which effective controls and
rington et al. 1996). Standardized constraints are learned. In the origiself-report measures of delinquency nal formulation of the theory,
occurring in school are rare, al- Hirschi (1969) identified four major
though a few measures of student elements of social bonding: (1) commisconduct have been attempted mitment to conventional goals, or the
(Jenkins 1997). Research on school perceived costs and risks of investing
violence also has not always properly time, energy, and self in convendistinguished between serious tional behavior; (2) attachment to
offending (such as assault, robbery) prosocial others, or the extent to
and less serious student misconduct
(for example, disrespect toward
teachers; violation of school rules
such as dress code; truancy; cutting
class). This distinction may be vital
for accurate causal explanation and
relevant policy formulation (Welsh,
Jenkins, and Greene 1999).
In general, different researchers
have measured different aspects of
school disorder without due attention to theoretical or practical utility.
Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins (1999)
have argued that indicators of student misconduct and offending are
most useful in facilitating the testing
of different theories of school violence (for example, individual, institutional, and community-level theories) across different sites (different
schools and school districts), but
which one cares about others and
their expectations and opinions;
(3) involvement in conventional
activities, or participation in conventional activities as opposed to delinquent activities; and (4) belief in conventional rules, or the degree of
moral validity that youths do or do
not attach to conventional values.
Schools provide a central venue
for social bonding (or failure). Students with poor academic or interpersonal skills are likely to experience failure and alienation in school.
They do
not become attached to
school because social interaction is
unrewarding. They do not become
committed to educational goals
because they view them as unrealistic. They do not become involved in
conventional social activities either
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
92
because
they
are
denied
access
to
them or because meaningful activities are lacking. They do not come to
believe in conventional rules because
they do not perceive meaningful
present or future rewards for compli-
Relationships between bonding
and delinquency have been generally
supported by research, although the
magnitude and direction of the relationships vary across studies (for
reviews, see Akers 1997; Gottfredson
and Hirschi 1990; Vold, Bernard, and
ance.
Snipes 1998).
Other relevant individual predicgender, age, and race.
Girls have generally evidenced lower
rates of delinquency and school misconduct than have boys, although the
gender gap has narrowed in recent
tors include
years
(Chesney-Lind
and Shelden
1992). Older teenagers,
are
on
average,
at higher risk of being involved in
both minor and serious delinquent
acts (Steffensmeier et al. 1989). The
effects of race are not entirely clear.
While minorities are overrepresented in official (police or court) statistics, self-report measures of delinquency have generally revealed
much smaller racial differences (Farrington et al. 1996). At least three
reasons for this discrepancy have
been suggested: police and courts are
biased against minorities; minorities
are underrepresented in survey samples ; and the validity of self-reported
delinquency
may vary
across
ethnic
groups.
includes factors such as communication patterns, norms about what is
appropriate behavior and how things
should be done, role relationships
and role perception, patterns of influence and accommodation, and
rewards and sanctions (Fox et al.
1979). Unhealthy organizational climates contribute to low innovation,
low job satisfaction, alienation, lack
of creativity, complacency, conformity, and frustration.
Organizational climate, in general, is the &dquo;study of perceptions that
individuals have of various aspects of
the environment in the organization&dquo;
(Owens 1987,168). It is the feel of the
school as perceived by those who
work there or attend class there; it is
the general &dquo;we feeling&dquo; and interactive life of the school (Anderson
1982). Perceptual measures
used to
are
gen-
erally
many different
of
organizational climate.
aspects
Most theorists argue that the aggregated perception of individuals constitutes something that is called climate : &dquo;though one may argue that
perceptions themselves are not
objective reflections of ’reality’ (but
may be influenced by subjective factors), the point is that whatever people in the organization perceive as
their experience is the reality to be
described&dquo; (Owens 1987, 298).
One of the benchmark studies
relating school violence to dimenassess
sions of school climate was the Safe
School Study by the National Institute of Education (1978). Using ques-
THEORIES OF SCHOOL CLIMATE
tionnaires, data were collected from
students, teachers, and principals
Like individual people, schools
have their own characteristic personalities, or climates. School climate
from 642 U.S. public schools. Community data from each school were
prepared from the 1970 census. The
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
93
institute’s report clearly suggested
that school administration and policies make a significant difference in
victimization rates. Certain policies,
the report stated, reduced disorder in
schools: decreasing the size and
impersonality of schools; making
school discipline more systematic;
decreasing arbitrariness and student frustration; improving school
reward structures; increasing the
relevance of schooling; and decreasing students’ sense of powerlessness
and alienation.
In a reanalysis of the Safe School
Study data, Gottfredson and Gottfredson (1985) related student and
teacher victimization to various factors internal and external to schools.
Schools with the worst discipline
problems
were
schools where the
unclear, unfair, or inconsistently enforced; schools that used
rules
were
or indirect responses to
student behavior (for example, lowered grades in response to misconduct) ; schools where teachers and
administrators did not know the
rules or disagreed on responses to
student misconduct; schools that
ignored misconduct; and schools
where students did not believe in the
legitimacy of the rules. Other major
factors related to high levels of victimization included school size;
inadequate resources for teaching;
poor teacher-administration cooperation ; inactive administrations;
and punitive attitudes on the part of
teachers.
Schools, of course, are embedded
in communities, although communities are not the main focus here. In
addition to school characteristics,
ambiguous
high levels of crime, poverty, and
unemployment in the community
surrounding the school have occasionally been associated with higher
levels of school victimization (Gottfredson and Daiger 1979; Rubel
1978). Hellman and Beaton (1986)
found, in a sample of Boston high
schools, that community characteristics predicted school violence (measured by suspension rates) more
strongly than did school characteristics. In middle schools, however,
characteristics of the school environment, such as teacher-student ratios,
explained suspension rates better
than did community characteristics.
Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins (1999)
demonstrated that community-level
factors in large, urban school districts offered only a little additional
explanatory power (less than 5 percent of explained variance) beyond
that afforded by individual variables
(16 percent of explained variance).
Poverty in the local community, however, was significantly associated
with higher rates of student
misconduct.
SCHOOL CLIMATE
SURVEY RESULTS
Research results from Philadelphia are used to address three major
questions. First, do schools vary significantly on dimensions of school climate ? Second, do schools vary significantly on measures of disorder
(victimization, avoidance,
percep-
tions of safety, serious offending, and
misconduct)? Third, to what degree
do individual and school climate
variables explain variations in
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
94
disorder across schools? Policy implications are straightforward: identification of the most relevant causes of
school disorder suggests appropriate
directions for prevention and intervention. School climate fills a critically important gap in policy, not just
theory.
The School District of Philadel-
phia is the fifth-largest public school
system in the United States. In 1993,
the school district had an annual
budget of slightly over $1.3 billion,
served approximately 192,000 students, and employed a staff of nearly
30,000 persons, 13,217 of whom were
regular classroom teachers. The district operates 31 high schools, 42
middle schools, 171 elementary
schools, and 15 special facilities
(such as magnet schools and disciplinary schools) throughout the city.
The research described in this article
was conducted in 11 middle schools
3
during the 1994-95 school year.3
Measures of school climate and
individual student characteristics
were taken from the 118-item Effective School Battery (ESB), an instrument designed to study school climate and its outcomes (Gottfredson
1984). Reliabilities and validities of
ESB scales have been well established across diverse subgroups
(such as age and race) and settings
(such as urban and rural). The ESB
is divided into two sets of subscales:
psychosocial climate and student
characteristics.
Six psychosocial climate scales
focus on the ways students in the
school generally perceive and
describe the school environment.
These include
perceptions of school
safety; clarity of rules; fairness of
for students; student
influence on school affairs; and planning and action (student reports of
the degree to which the school undertakes efforts to plan and implement
4
school improvement) .
Twelve student characteristics
scales concentrate more on the population characteristics of the school;
that is, they describe a school by the
people who inhabit it. Five scales correspond well to Hirschi’s control theory (1969): school involvement
(involvement in school activities),
positive peer associations (the degree
to which students have friends who
value school and avoid trouble),
belief in school rules (the extent to
which students believe in the validity of conventional social rules),
school effort (how much care and
effort students devote to schoolwork), and school rewards (how
much students are rewarded for good
behavior). Three additional characteristics were assessed: age, race,
and sex. School misconduct and
rules; respect
delinquency are generally greater
among males, older teenagers, and
nonwhite students, although the
effects of age and gender on school
misconduct are less clear-cut than
their effects on delinquency. Previous research suggests that fear (for
example, avoidance) is greater
among nonwhites, females, and
younger students, while the objective
risk for victimization among
niles
juve-
generally increases with age.
Five measures of school disorder
examined. The safety scale of
the ESB indicates how safe students
report the school environment to be.
Examples of items include &dquo;How
often do you feel safe while in your
were
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
95
school building?&dquo; and &dquo;How often are
you afraid that someone will hurt or
bother you at school?&dquo; Student victimization was measured by a separate self-report questionnaire distributed to all students. Items asking
about experiences during the current
school year included: &dquo;Were you ever
hit or pushed by another student?&dquo;
and &dquo;Did anyone ever take anything
directly from you by force,
weapons,
threats at school?&dquo; Student avoidance was measured by several survey items asking respondents if they
purposely avoided certain school
locations (such as locker rooms or a
parking lot) or cut classes because of
fear of victimization. Self-reported
offending was measured by nine
items assessing fairly serious behavior. For example, students were
asked whether they had, during the
current school year, hit another student or teacher, threatened a student
or teacher, stolen something from
someone, carried a weapon, or used
or sold drugs or alcohol in school.
Student misconduct was measured
by four ESB items asking whether
the student had been sent out of class
for punishment, had had to stay after
school as a punishment, had been
suspended from school, or had had to
fight to protect himself or herself.5
These items represent a more general class of misbehavior that may
violate school rules without being
clearly illegal or delinquent as such.
Eleven middle schools were chosen in consultation with district officials for administration of the ESB.
We included schools that together
represented a wide range of disorder
geographic regions of the city.
Descriptive statistics are presented
in Table 1.
I attempt in this article a
nontechnical
relatively
summary of
interested
in the staresults; those
tistical analyses should consult the
original sources (Welsh, Greene, and
Jenkins 1998; Welsh, Jenkins, and
Greene 1999; Welsh, Greene, and
Jenkins 1999; and Welsh, Stokes,
and Greene 1999)
or
(as indicated by incident rates),
range of income
levels,
a
and different
DO SCHOOLS HAVE
DIFFERENT CLIMATES?
The 11 schools differed signifiall five measures of school
climate. The largest between-school
differences were found for planning
and action; clarity of rules; and student influence. Schools, therefore,
differ considerably in the degree to
which students perceive that the
school is making any effort to implement school improvements; in the
clarity of school rules; and in the
degree to which students have any
influence on school policies. Note,
however, that sizable but smaller
effects were found for the other two
climate scales as well: students feel
more respected and they perceive
that school rules are more fair at
some schools than at others. Schools
are not at all identical in the rules,
procedures, norms, and practices
that make up school climate.
cantly on
DO SCHOOLS HAVE
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DISORDER?
While one might expect that 11
schools in the same large,
urban school district would evidence
similar levels of disorder, this was
public
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
96
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS,
SCHOOL CLIMATE, AND COMMUNITY VARIABLES
*Some variables shown here were used only in the original selection of schools, in consultation
with school district officials.
tThe percentage of students participating in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) is
the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced-cost lunches.
not the
case
at all.
However,
observed differences depended to a
considerable degree upon exactly
which definition of disorder
was
used. Schools varied greatly in their
levels of student misconduct, for
example (as indicated by eta-squared
estimates), but differed to a much
lesser degree in their levels of serious
offending. This is perhaps not surprising, given the low levels of
serious victimization reported earlier. The other measure of disorder
showing the largest between-school
differences was school safety: schools
varied to a great degree in how safe
their students felt. In general, students who perceived higher levels of
safety in their schools also tended to
report lower rates of victimization,
avoidance, and offending (Welsh,
Greene, and Jenkins 1998). Schools
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
97
TABLE 2
SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS OF FIVE MEASURES OF SCHOOL DISORDER
SOURCES: Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins 1998; Welsh, Jenkins, and Greene 1999.
NOTES: &dquo;+&dquo; indicates a significant, positive relationship between a dependent variable and a predictor (example: respect for students is associated with higher levels of perceived safety). &dquo;-&dquo; indicates a significant, negative relationship between a dependent variable and a predictor (example: respect for students is associated with lower levels of offending and misconduct). &dquo;0&dquo; indicates that no
statistically significant relationship between a dependent variable and a predictor was found (example : clarity of rules is not associated with misconduct).
also differed significantly, although
a much lesser extent, in their levels of student avoidance and victimization. Again, schools are far from
identical. There are considerable differences in disorder to be explained.
to
THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOOL
CLIMATE AND STUDENT
CHARACTERISTICS ON DISORDER
The effects of individual and
school predictors are summarized in
Table 2.6 Four of the five school climate variables significantly predicted victimization: respect for students, planning and action, fairness
of rules, and clarity of rules. Student
influence on decision making had no
effect. Respect for students had the
on lower levels of
victimization. Of the individual student characteristics, sex and positive
peer associations had the greatest
effects. Females reported lower levels of victimization than did males,
as did students with less deviant
peer networks. Older students
reported lower levels of victimization, as did nonwhite students. It
may be the case that older students
are at the top of the heap in middle
school, although that status is shortlived as they prepare to graduate to
high school. Nonwhite students
make up the majority (79 percent) of
the student population (see Table 1),
but the race finding for victimization cannot easily be interpreted
as an indication of interracial
greatest influence
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
98
tension. As expected, students with
greater involvement in school activities reported higher levels of
victimization.
Three of five school climate variables significantly predicted avoidance : respect for students, student
influence, and clarity of rules. Clarity of rules had the strongest effects
on reducing avoidance. Unfortunately, where students reported
greater influence on school decisions,
avoidance was also higher. Of the
individual student characteristics,
older students reported lower levels
of avoidance, as did females. Race
had no effect. Two other large effects
were found. As expected, students
with greater involvement in school
activities reported higher levels of
avoidance. Students with positive
peer associations reported much less
avoidance. However, small explained
variance suggests that constructs in
addition to demographics, bonding,
and school climate are needed to
explain avoidance behavior.
Four of five school climate variables significantly predicted safety:
respect for students; student influence ; clarity of rules; and planning
and action. Respect for students had
the strongest effects on increasing
safety, but clarity of rules was
strongly positively associated with
safety as well. Surprisingly, high
involvement was related to low perceived safety, confirming similar
findings for victimization. Of the
individual student characteristics,
older students reported feeling more
safe, as did female students. Race
had no effect. Belief in rules and positive peer associations both had
strong, positive effects on safety.
However, students with greater
involvement in school activities and
greater experience of rewards
reported lower feelings of safety.
Unfortunately, commitment to conventional goals appears conducive to
higher victimization and lower perceived safety.
Four school climate variables predicted offending: respect for students ; fairness of rules; clarity of
rules; and student influence. Fairness of rules and respect for students
had the strongest effects on lowered
offending. Of the individual student
characteristics, older students
reported higher levels of offending,
as did nonwhite students and males.
In contrast to the predictions of control theory, students with greater
involvement in school activities also
reported higher levels of offending.
Perhaps greater involvement in
school activities spells greater opportunities for deviance for some and
greater exposure to victimization for
others. As predicted by control theory, those who believed in school
rules, reported great school effort,
and associated with nondeviant
peers all evidenced much less offending. Experience of rewards, however,
had no effect.
Similar influences were found on
misconduct. Of the five psychosocial
climate variables, however, only two
(respect for students and fairness of
rules) significantly predicted lower
misconduct. For student characteristics, patterns were almost identical:
nonwhite students and males
reported higher levels of misconduct,
but age had no effect. Greater
involvement in school activities once
again predicted higher levels of
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
99
misconduct. Those who believed in
school rules, reported great school
effort, and associated with nondeviant peers all reported much lower
levels of misconduct. Experience of
school rewards, once again, had no
of delinquency in different settings.
The strongest predictor of offending
was positive peer associations, which
are significantly inversely related to
offending, as are belief in rules and
school effort (Hirschi’s commitment
effect.
Results have shown, therefore,
that schools vary significantly on
multiple measures of school climate
and on five different measures of disorder. School climate variables significantly predicted all five measures
of disorder (victimization, safety,
avoidance, offending, and misconduct), although patterns of results
and overall predictive power differed
somewhat across the five measures.
There is a clear need to more explicitly consider institutional influences
of school disorder than has previously been the case.
Two measures of school climate,
respect for students and fairness of
rules, appear highly relevant for
explaining student offending and
misconduct. Other school climate
variables such as clarity of rules and
student influence tended to better
predict student avoidance and perceptions of safety. It makes a difference whether one seeks to understand misbehavior, victimization, or
related components (avoidance,
construct
safety).
Variables associated with control
theory (school involvement, positive
peer associations, belief in school
rules, and school effort), as expected,
predicted offending and misconduct
more strongly than they predicted
other
of disorder. Control
after all, a theory of delinquency and continues to be robust in
its generalizability to different types
measures
theory is,
[1969] ).
Offending is the dependent measure most consistent with existing
theories of delinquency. Misconduct,
however, is the type of behavior that
is much more frequent in schools.
Future studies of school disorder
should consider both. Both are
explained well by a combination of
individual- and school-level variables. Together, they provided a
strong multivariate measure of disorder. In the present study, both
models accounted for large, independent portions of explained variance (16-18 percent), but misconduct
showed a higher portion of variance
explained by between-schools factors. Misconduct, therefore, offers
greater potential for school-based
prevention and intervention. Reductions of offending, on the other hand,
will require greater attention to policies focused specifically on high-risk
youths (see Howell 1995).
The strongest predictor of offending was positive peer associations,
which are significantly inversely
related to offending, but belief in
school rules and school effort were
also strong predictors. For misconduct, belief in school rules was the
strongest predictor. Control theory
suggests that those who are well
integrated and attached to basic
institutions of socialization such as
the school are less likely to deviate
from conventional norms and more
likely to obey school rules and avoid
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
100
Those who invest
effort
in
school, therefore,
greater
may be more committed to conventional goals and perhaps more motivated to cope with the demands and
stresses of the school environment.
Those who believe in conventional
rules believe that school rules can
and will be upheld by responsible
adults to maintain a safe learning
environment, and children thus
maintain a certain &dquo;stake in confor-
punishment.
mity&dquo; by believing in the validity of
rues (Toby 1983). Those who
have more positive associations are
more likely to be involved in conventional activities and are less likely to
those
be pressured into
deviance.
committing acts of
However, a greater involvement
in activities alone may simply
increase one’s exposure to risk or
opportunities for deviance at school,
resulting in positive relationships
between involvement in school
activities and misbehavior (both
offending and misconduct).’ Similarly, perceptions of rewards for good
behavior may be unrelated to offending because being cool or being tough
are more valued by some students
than being good or because valued
rewards may be obtained in other
ways.
Involvement in school activities
also associated with higher levels of victimization, avoidance, and
lower perceived safety. This is an
unfortunate state of affairs. Older
students reported less avoidance and
victimization and greater perceived
safety, but older students also
reported more serious offending. It
may be more desirable to be the
was
predator than the prey. This
hypothesis was further supported by
the finding that experience of school
rewards (part of Hirschi’s construct
of commitment to conventional val-
[1969]) produced no effects on
avoidance or offending, but negative
effects on victimization and perceived safety. Good behavior may
produce rewards but also higher victimization and fear.
Conventional values may be a
liability in large urban school districts. In the absence of strong school
support for good behavior and effective discipline for bad behavior, students will lower their risk of victimization through means of their own
invention. Unfortunately, the defensive strategies they adopt may only
fuel a vicious circle in which aggressive postures adopted for selfdefense all too easily convert to a
higher incidence of aggressive
behavior, either through one’s own
initiative to establish a reputation or
through someone else’s initiative to
establish a reputation at the other’s
expense. Such posturing is all too
likely to be reinforced and strengthened as students move into the
larger, more dangerous, and more
understaffed urban high schools.
Case study results from the Philadelphia study (Welsh, Jenkins, and
Greene 1997) further support this
interpretation; the results include
reports by students that rules and
sanctions are unclear, that discipline
is lax or inconsistent, and that neither teachers nor teaching assistants
effectively monitor behavior or protect the smaller and weaker students
in the school. In the absence of
ues
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
101
effective control by teachers, teach- effects of community variables (poving assistants, security personnel, or erty, residential stability, and comadministrators, students can, do, munity crime rate) on school disorder
and will enact their own codes of (as measured by school incident and
dismissal rates). Neither community
behavior.
Findings that nonwhite, male stu- crime nor community stability
dents report greater offending are reveals any significant effects on
consistent with findings of recent school disorder in path models,
research, as is the positive relation- although community poverty exerts
ship between age and offending significant indirect effects through
(Welsh, Jenkins, and Greene 1999). its influence on school climate.
Misbehavior of low-income, African
Community characteristics such
American children may partially as poverty may affect school climate
represent reactions to oppressive life by limiting the social and economic
experiences and standards perceived resources available to a school (D.
Anderson 1998; Welsh, Stokes, and
as unfair and unobtainable (Cohen
1955), resulting in attempts to recap- Greene 1999). For example, poverty
ture feelings of self-worth, identity, in the school’s surrounding commuand respect by adopting norms of nity influences the social charactersocial distancing and physical tough- istics of students attending the
ness (Anderson 1990; Hanna 1988).
school (in terms of, for example, their
In fact, strong beliefs in the core val- readiness to learn, their interest in
ues of the American Dream, comlearning, their risk of abuse and vicbined with the experience that the timization), the kind of faculty that
legitimate means required for suc- are recruited and retained, the
(such as a good education in a
safe environment) are blocked, may
provide a recipe for eventual alienacess
tion, frustration, and perhaps
suc-
cession into deviant rather than conforming behavior (see Messner and
Rosenfeld 1994). As Farrington et al.
(1996) argue, however, greater meth-
odological inquiry into the validity of
self-report measures across different
and contexts is warranted.
School climate may play a critical
role in mediating the effects of
community-level factors on school
disorder. Research in progress
(Welsh, Stokes, and Greene 1999)
suggests that school climate (measured by student attendance and
turnover) strongly mediates the
races
available for educational
and recreational programs, and the
involvement of parents and other
citizens in school planning and
activities. Further, regardless of
where they live, students must travel
through the local community, either
by foot, car, or bus, to get to and from
the school. Their perceived exposure
resources
to risk may
cause them to carry
avoid
certain places, or
weapons,
in
aggressive behaviors that
engage
reduce their sense of danger (Lockwood 1997). Community norms in
high-poverty communities may reinforce aggressive patterns of behavior
as forms of adaptation to environmental demands (E. Anderson 1990,
1998; Bernard 1990).
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
102
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
School climate theories carry
promise not only for the explanation
of school disorder but also for prevention and intervention. School disorder can be reduced by conscious
efforts by school administrators,
teachers, parents, students, and
community
groups
(for example,
Gottfredson 1989). Indeed, the ESB
was designed not just for theoretical
exploration but also as a tool to influence planning and policy. Its author
(Gottfredson 1984) intended that it
be used by teachers, administrators,
and superintendents to identify
excellence and problem areas, stimulate planning and program development, provide benchmarks for
planning and evaluating school
improvement projects, and help in
policymaking and allocating
resources and personnel.
Following the completion of surveys in 11 schools and intensive case
studies in 3 schools (Welsh, Jenkins,
and Greene 1997), my colleagues and
I established a collaborative process
to discuss research results and implications for school planning. First,
researchers met with teachers and
administrators at each school. In
their annual school improvement
plans submitted to the school district
office, each school targeted specific
problem areas identified by research
conclusion of the first workshop, we
identified four significant problemsolving strategies: (1) building family involvement and support for
learning and school activities; (2)
increasing staff development and
training; (3) creating an alternative
learning center for unruly students;
and (4) strengthening the existing
Student Assistance Program, which
provided outside referrals to health
and social services. The second workshop concentrated on developing
these four strategies.
The year following our study (academic year 1995-96), the School District of Philadelphia embarked on a
comprehensive program aimed at
increasing the achievement of children in school, the Children Achieving Education Plan.8 Two elements of
that plan illustrate attention to
school climate. First, the cluster
concept-creating groups of schools
from elementary through high
school-was an attempt to coordinate local educational resources,
enhance teacher communication,
and improve transitioning of students between schools. The cluster
concept was seen as a key factor in
cultivating a positive school climate by engaging all stakeholders
(including teachers, parents, students, community residents, and
local businesses) in decision-making
processes. Second, the plan identiand developed problem-solving fied a need to develop a coordinated
strategies. Two workshops were system of social service delivery
later held with teachers and administrators from the three schools
where case studies were carried out
and with representatives from the
Philadelphia School District. At the
to students and families in need.
This system was to be family
centered, linking students and
their families with health and
social service agencies, as well as
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
103
with community agencies. Coordination of services was seen as a key to
reducing school disorder and improving achievement.
Many other excellent examples of
how school climate theory can be
used for diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation are available. Denise Gottfredson (1986), for
example, examined Project PATHE
(Positive Action Through Holistic
Education) at four middle schools
and four high schools in low-income,
predominantly African American
urban and rural areas in Charleston
County, South Carolina. The program contained six main components : (1) the design and implementation of school improvement
programs by teams of teachers, students, parents, and community
members; (2) the review and revision
of curriculum and discipline policies;
(3) the design of schoolwide study
skills programs and cooperative
learning techniques; (4) school climate
interventions, including
expanded extracurricular activities,
peer counseling, and a school pride
program; (5) career-oriented activities ; and (6) the development of special academic and counseling services for low-achieving and disruptive
students. Although experimental
and control schools were not directly
compared
descriptive
in statistical models,
results suggested that
the PATHE program produced several favorable outcomes: students in
experimental schools reported less
delinquency, less drug involvement,
and fewer suspensions or other
punishments. Students in experimental schools who received special
academic and counseling services
scored significantly higher on standardized tests and were less likely to
report drug involvement
or
repeat
a
than were control group
students.
School-based programs that
attempt to increase children’s school
effort, encourage positive associations, and demonstrate that obeying
the rules will result in valued
rewards may also provide critical
foundations for reducing school disorder. A host of school-based interventions addressing such student
needs are in various stages of implementation, but stronger evaluations
of their effectiveness are still needed
(see Howell 1995, pt. 2). Our results
suggest that many such programs
are targeting appropriate causal factors. We recommend, however, that
close scrutiny of school climate be
included in any school-based program designed to reduce violence.
Efforts to change individuals, in
the absence of attention to school
policies that may be contributing
to high levels of misconduct, are
likely to be unproductive or even
grade
counterproductive.
CONCLUSION
Abundant research has addressed
individual-level predictors of student
misconduct and victimization, but
usually in isolation
from betweenschool factors. School climate theory
identifies a host of relevant schoollevel variables to consider. I advocate
more multilevel assessments of
school disorder (using multiple
measures
of
disorder),
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
with
assess-
104
ments of school
settings
to include
detailed examination
and
institutional factors than has generally been the case (Reiss and Roth
1993; Short 1998).9 School climate
theory adds significantly to our
understanding of school violence,
and the identification of contributing
or inhibiting factors at the school
level can help guide appropriate,
effective prevention and intervention efforts.
much
of
more
interpersonal, situational,
Notes
a brief review is attempted here.
detailed discussions, see D. Anderson 1998; Gottfredson and Gottfredson 1985;
Lawrence 1998; and Toby 1983.
2. The SCS is an enhancement to the National Crime Victimization Survey that sur-
1.
For
(see Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins 1998; Welsh,
Jenkins, and Greene 1999).
7. Similar findings were reported by
Jenkins (1997) and Paternoster et al. (1983),
who noted that many indicators of involvement are activities that occur during the
school day, and substantial blocks of time are
available for deviance even though one may
also be involved in conventional activities.
8. A new superintendent, David Hornbeck,
was hired during the concluding phase of our
research. He was briefed on the results of our
project, but his Children Achieving agenda
was already well articulated when he assumed
his duties in Philadelphia.
9. See Messner and Rosenfeld’s arguments
(1994) for closer examination of societal institutions that play important roles in socialization, including education.
Only
more
nationally representative samples of
10,000 students aged 12 to 19. The SCS sur-
veys
gather data on victimization at school,
drug availability at school, street gangs at
school, and fear of attack at school. SCS surveys were conducted in 1989 and 1995. Only
partial data from the 1995 survey have been
reported so far; data on fear have not yet been
veys
released.
3. Detailed descriptions of methodology are
available in Welsh, Jenkins, and Greene 1997.
4. The safety scale is treated as a dependent rather than an independent variable here
so as to facilitate comparisons with other
of disorder. We thus use five rather
than six measures of school climate to predict
disorder.
5. Although misconduct is self-reported by
students, several items are related to teacher
and administrator responses to student
behavior. There is some potential subjectivity
in teacher and administrator responses,
although misconduct that is punished in a
large urban public school district is unlikely to
be trivial (Welsh, Greene, and Jenkins 1999).
6. This discussion is based mainly upon results from multivariate analyses of variance
measures
References
Akers, Ronald L.
1997. Criminological
Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. 2d ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Anderson, Carolyn S. 1982. The Search
for School Climate: A Review of the
Literature. Review of Educational Research 52(3):368-420.
Anderson, David C. 1998. Curriculum,
Culture, and Community: The Challenge of School Violence. In Youth Violence: Crime and Justice, a Review of
Research, ed. Michael Tonry and
Mark H. Moore. Vol. 24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race,
Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
—. 1998. The Social
Ecology of Youth
Violence. In Youth Violence: Crime
and Justice, a Review of Research, ed.
Michael Tonry and Mark H. Moore.
Vol. 24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bastian, Lisa D. and Bruce M. Taylor.
1991. School Crime. NCJ-131645.
Washington, DC: Department of Jus-
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
105
tice, Office of Justice Programs, Buof Justice Statistics.
Bernard, Thomas J. 1990. Angry Aggression Among the "Truly Disadvantaged." Criminology 28:73-96.
Biderman, Albert D. and James P.
Lynch. 1991. Understanding Crime
Incidence Statistics: Why the UCR Diverges from the NCS. New York:
reau
Springer.
Chandler, Kathryn A., Christopher D.
Chapman, Michael R. Rand, and
Bruce M. Taylor. 1998. Students’ Reports of Crime: 1989 and 1995. NCES
98-241/NCJ-169607. Washington,
DC: Department of Education and Department of Justice.
Chesney-Lind, Meda and Randall G.
Shelden. 1992. Girls: Delinquency and
Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys:
The Culture of the Gang. New York:
Free Press.
Farrington, David P., Rolf Loeber,
Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Welmoet
B. Van Kammen, and Laura Schmidt.
1996. Self-Reported Delinquency and
a Combined Delinquency Seriousness
Scale Based on Boys, Mothers, and
Teachers: Concurrent and Predictive
Validity for African-Americans and
Caucasians. Criminology 34:493-517.
Ferraro, Kenneth F. 1994. Fear of Crime:
Interpreting Victimization Risk. Albany : State University of New York
Press.
Fox, Robert S., Richard Schmuck, Elmer
Van Egmond, Miram Rivto, and Charles
Jung. 1979. Diagnosing Professional
Climates of Schools. Fairfax, VA:
Learning Resources.
Gottfredson, Denise C. 1986. An Empirical Test of School-Based Environmental and Individual Interventions to
Reduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior. Criminology 24:705-31.
—.
1989.
Developing Effective Or-
ganizations to Reduce School Disorder. In Strategies to Reduce Student
Misbehavior, ed. Oliver C. Moles.
Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement.
Gottfredson, Gary D. 1984. The Effective
School Battery. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
Gottfredson, Gary D. and Denise Daiger.
1979. Disruption in Six Hundred
Schools: The Social Ecology of Personal Victimization in the Nation’s
Public Schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University.
Gottfredson, Gary D. and Denise C. Gottfredson. 1985. Victimization in
Schools. New York: Plenum.
Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi.
1990. A General Theory of Crime.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Hanna, Judith L. 1988. Disruptive
School Behavior: Class, Race, and
Culture. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Hellman, Daryl A. and Susan Beaton.
1986. The Pattern of Violence in Urban Public Schools: The Influence of
School and Community. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency
23:102-27.
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Howell, James C., ed. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders. NCJ 153681.
Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Jenkins, Patricia H. 1997. School Delinquency and the School Social Bond.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:337-67.
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
106
1998. School
Crime and Juvenile Justice. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lockwood, Daniel. 1997. Violence Among
Middle School and High School Students: Analysis and Implications for
Prevention. NCJ-166363. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Messner, Steven F. and Richard Rosenfeld. 1994. Crime and the American
Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
National Institute of Education. 1978.
Violent Schools, Safe Schools: The
Lawrence, Richard A.
Safe School Study Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: National Institute of
Education.
National School Board Association. 1993.
Violence in the Schools: How America’s School Boards Are Safeguarding
Our Children. Alexandria, VA: National School Board Association.
Owens, Robert G. 1987. Organizational
Behavior in Education. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Paternoster, Raymond L., Linda Saltzman, Gordon Waldo, and Theodore
Chiricos. 1983. Perceived Risk and
Social Control: Do Sanctions Really
Deter? Law and Society Review
17:457-79.
Pearson, Frank S. and Jackson Toby.
1991. Fear of School-Related Predatory Crime. Sociology and Social Research 75:117-25.
Reiss, Albert J., Jr. and Jeffrey A. Roth,
eds. 1993. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Vol. 1. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Rubel, Robert J. 1978. Analysis and Critique of HEW’s Safe School Study Report to Congress. Crime and Delinquency 24:257-65.
Sheley, Joseph F. and James D. Wright.
1993. Gun Acquisition and Possession
in Selected Juvenile Samples. NCJ145326. Washington, DC: Depart-
ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Short, James F., Jr. 1998. The Level of
Explanation Problem Revisited: The
American Society of Criminology 1997
Presidential Address. Criminology
36:3-36.
Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. 1995. Juvenile Offenders and
Victims: A Focus on Violence. NCJ153570. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Steffensmeier, Darrell, Emilie Anderson
Allen, Miles Harer, and Cathy
Streifel. 1989. Age and the Distribution of Crime. American Sociological
Review 94:803-31.
Toby, Jackson. 1983. Violence in School.
In Crime and Justice: An Annual
Review of Research, ed. M. Tonry and
N. Morris. Vol. 4. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Vold, George B., Thomas J. Bernard, and
Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1998. Theoretical
Criminology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Welsh, Wayne N., Jack R. Greene, and
Patricia H. Jenkins. 1998. Effects of
School Climate on Measures of Student Fear, Victimization, and Offending. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of
Criminology, Nov., Washington, DC.
—. 1999. School Disorder: The Influence of Individual, Institutional and
Community Factors. Criminology
37:73-115.
Welsh, Wayne N. and Philip W. Harris.
1999. Criminal Justice Policy and
Planning. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Welsh, Wayne N., Patricia H. Jenkins,
and Jack R. Greene. 1997. Building a
Culture and Climate of Safety in Public Schools in Philadelphia: SchoolBased Management and Violence Reduction. Final Report to the National
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016
107
Institute
of Justice. Philadelphia:
Temple University, Center for Public
Policy.
Welsh, Wayne N., Robert Stokes, and
1999. Effects of School Climate on
Student Misconduct. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy
of Criminal Justice Sciences, Mar.,
Orlando, FL.
Jack R. Greene. 1999. A Macro-Level
Model of School Disorder. Manuscript.
Whitaker, C. J. and L. D. Bastian. 1993.
Teenage Victims: A National Crime
Survey Report. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
—.
Downloaded from ann.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 21, 2016